Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
https://doi.org/10.2298/PAC2001056A
Low-temperature sintering of sodium beta alumina ceramics usingnanosized SnO2 sintering aid
Hajar Ahmadi Moghadam1,∗, Mohammad Hossein Paydar2
1Department of Material Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran2Department of Materials Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Received 24 August 2019; Received in revised form 24 December 2019; Accepted 26 February 2020
Abstract
Sodium beta alumina ceramics (Na1.67Al10.67Li0.33O17) is used in sodium sulphur batteries as solid electrolyte.In the present work, sodium beta alumina powder has been synthesized by the solid state method using Al2O3,Na2CO3 and Li2CO3 as the starting materials. The effect of nanosized SnO2 additive on sintering behaviour,microstructure, mechanical and electrical properties of sodium beta alumina ceramics has been investigated.The results indicated that the addition of 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 particles, determined as the optimalamount, can decrease the sintering temperature of sodium beta alumina ceramics for about 100 °C, and leadto the excellent densification and proper microstructure, as well. Improvement in sintering behaviour of betaalumina ceramics in the presence of nanosized SnO2 additive is apparently due to the formation of a liquidphase during the sintering process and lower sodium loss. The results also proved that by SnO2 addition, ionicconductivity at 300 °C, fracture strength and Weibull modulus of the sintered samples are improved by 66%,58%, and 45%, respectively. These improvements could be attributed to the higher amount of β′′-Al2O3 phase,higher density and more uniform microstructure.
Keywords: sodium beta alumina, nanosized SnO2, sintering, mechanical properties, ionic conductivity
I. Introduction
The engineering properties of ceramics are strongly
dependent on the microstructural features, including
size and shape of the grains, amount of remained poros-
ity, pore size and the distribution of pores in the fired
body. For most applications, microstructural control
usually means achievement of the high density, small
grain size and homogeneous microstructure [1]. Using
sintering aids is a well known method for altering mi-
crostructure during sintering of ceramic materials which
could modify densification characteristics and improve
mechanical, magnetic and electrical properties of the
fired sample [2–6]. In recent years, it has been shown
that using sintering aids with nanoparticle size can re-
duce the required amount of sintering aids even down to
1 mol% and can also improve properties of the sintered
products [7–13]. The unique properties of nanoparticles
are primarily due to their large surface-to-volume ratio
and their high activity.
∗Corresponding author: tel: +98 383 2324438,
e-mail: [email protected]
Sodium beta alumina ceramics has been studied
widely because of their application as solid electrolyte
in sodium sulphur and ZEBRA batteries [14–16]. How-
ever, it is very difficult to obtain dense and well-sintered
sodium beta alumina ceramics using an ordinary sinter-
ing process because of the high volatility of alkaline
elements at high temperatures [16–18]. The sintering
temperature of sodium beta alumina ceramics is gen-
erally higher than 1600 °C [19–21]. The volatilization
of sodium at high sintering temperature and the poor
densities at low sintering temperature are deleterious to
mechanical strength and ionic conductivity of this elec-
trolyte [16]. It would be possible to lower the sintering
temperature and overcome the mentioned difficulties by
using sintering aids. The effects of different sintering
aids including ZnO, MgO, Nb2O3, Sm2O3 and nano-
CuO on the densification behaviour and properties of
sodium beta alumina electrolyte have been investigated
[6, 22–24].
In the present work, the effects of the nanosized SnO2
additive as a sintering aid on sinterability, microstruc-
ture, mechanical and electrical properties of sodium
56
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
beta alumina ceramics, synthesized by the solid state
method, have been investigated.
II. Experimental procedure
2.1. Synthesis method
Sodium beta alumina was synthesized by the solid
state method. In this method, the starting materials
were: Na2CO3 and Li2CO3 (with 99.9% purity from
Carlo Erba Company) and α-Al2O3 (with 99.9% pu-
rity from Inframat Advanced Materials Company). Ac-
cording to the chemical formula of Li2O-stabilized
β′′-alumina as Na1.67Al10.67Li0.33O17, stoichiometric
amounts of the starting materials were first weighed, in-
timately mixed and calcined at 1300 °C for 2 h. High
purity nanosized SnO2 powder (99.9%, ≤80 nm, Ad-
vanced Materials US) was used as sintering aids. Re-
quired amount of the nanosized SnO2 (i.e. 0.5, 1 and
2 mol%) was mixed with the calcined powder by attri-
tion milling using 5 mm zirconia balls in the ethanol
medium for 4 h with the fixed rotation speed of 480 rpm.
After the slurries were dried, the powder was granulated
by passing through 60 mesh number screen and shaped
in a die by applying 200 MPa pressure uniaxially. Disk
shaped samples with a thickness of 2 mm and diameter
of 12 mm were fired at different temperatures including
1520, 1570 and 1620 °C for 15 min with the heating rate
of 4 °C/min. In order to minimize sodium loss, the green
samples were placed in an alumina-crucible and covered
with the β′′-alumina powder.
2.2. Characterization techniques
The density of the sintered samples was measured
by the Archimedes’ method in ethanol as an immersion
medium. Phase purity of the sintered samples was ex-
amined by a BRUKER X-ray diffractometer using Cu
Kα radiation. The scans of the selected diffraction peaks
were carried out in the step mode (step size of 0.05°,
measurement time of 5 s). Relative phase fractions of
β-Al2O3 ( f (β)) and β′′-Al2O3 ( f (β′′)) were calculated
according to the Pekarsky’s formula as follows [25]:
f (β′′) = 100 − f (β) = 100 −1.14Iβ
1.14Iβ + Iβ′′(1)
where Iβ and Iβ′′ are peak intensities of β and β′′ phase
at 44.50° and 45.90°, respectively.
The microstructure of the sintered samples was char-
acterized by scanning electron microscope (SEM, Leica
Cambridge S360). For the SEM observations, the spec-
imens were polished to a mirror finish and then ther-
mally etched at 100 °C lower than used sintering tem-
perature for 30 min in air. In this study, biaxial flexure
test (BFT) was used to evaluate the mechanical strength
of the sintered samples. In this experiment, load is ap-
plied by a loading ring on the disc specimen that is
placed on a supporting ring (this test is also termed “ring
on ring” and is carried out under the ASTM C1499,
2003 standard). In the present work the variability in
fracture strength values was analysed according to two
parameters proposed in the Weibull approach [26]. The
ionic conductivity of the sintered ceramics was mea-
sured by AC 2-probe impedance analysis on a frequency
response analyser (Solartron 1260, Solartron Analyti-
cal) over a frequency range of 10 Hz to 5 MHz with the
symmetric platinum electrodes in the temperature range
from 200 to 500 °C with 50 °C interval in air.
III. Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows the relative densities of the fired
samples as a function of the sintering temperature and
amount of the used nanosized SnO2 powder as sintering
aid. According to these results, the density of all sam-
ples increased with sintering temperature as well as with
addition of SnO2. At sintering temperature of 1620 °C,
the density of the pure samples was 3.15 g/cm3, i.e.
96.5% TD (theoretical density is 3.26 g/cm3) and it was
increased to 99.4% TD by the addition of 1 mol% of
SnO2. The addition of 0.5 mol% of nanosized SnO2 had
no significant effect on the sample densities. In contrast,
using 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 additive effectively
decreased sintering temperature and improved sinter-
ability of the parent phase. The density of the sample
prepared with 1 mol% of SnO2 and sintered at 1520 °C
was 98.1% TD, which is higher than the density of the
pure sample sintered at even 100 °C higher temperature
(1620 °C). Thus, it can be concluded that the addition of
1 mol% nanosized SnO2 decreases the sintering temper-
ature of sodium beta alumina ceramics for about 100 °C.
Using lower sintering temperature definitely can lead to
the lower sodium loss that would cause improvement in
properties of sodium beta alumina ceramics [16]. Some
improvement of the sintering behaviour was observed
for the samples with 2 mol% of nanosized SnO2, but not
as pronounced as when just 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2
was added.
Figure 1. Relative densities as a function of sinteringtemperature and SnO2 amount
57
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
Figure 2. X-ray diffraction patterns of the samples prepared with different amounts of nanosized SnO2 additive
Figure 2 shows the typical X-ray diffraction pat-
terns of the samples sintered at 1620 °C which con-
firms the presence of Na1.67Al10.67Li0.33O17 crystalline
phase [6,27]. According to XRD patterns, no impurity
phases have been detected for the samples prepared with
0.5 and 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2. However, when the
amount of SnO2 increased to 2 mol%, a few unknown
diffraction peaks were detected. So, it is proposed that,
for the samples with 0.5 and 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2,
Sn4+ can be incorporated into the sodium beta alumina
crystal lattice [6]. Decrease in the density of the sam-
ple by increasing amount of SnO2 from 1 to 2 mol% can
also be attributed to the presence of impurity phase in
this sample. β-Al2O3 (hexagonal) and β′′-Al2O3 (rhom-
bohedral) are two main subgroups of sodium beta alu-
mina and β′′-Al2O3 exhibits a significantly higher ionic
conductivity than β-Al2O3 [16]. The amount of β′′-
Al2O3 was calculated using Eq. 1 and it is 99% in the
sample with 1 mol% of nano SnO2, which is about 4%
higher than that of the pure sample. The effect of cation
additives in sodium beta alumina depends on their size
and charge. The oxygen atoms in the spinel block por-
tion of the structure are closely packed with small Al3+
ions in the interstices. Al3+ ions can be replaced by
small cations without undue strain [28]. According to
the Boilot and Thery’s theory, as the ionic radius of Sn4+
cation (0.071 nm) is smaller than 0.097 nm of Al3+, Sn4+
is able to occupy Al3+ positions in the spinel block in the
way to stabilize the structure of β′′-Al2O3 phase [24,29].
Regarding the densities and XRD results, it can be con-
cluded that the optimal amount of SnO2 was 1 mol%.
Therefore, in further research the properties of the sam-
ple with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2, sintered at 1520 °C,
are compared with the properties of the pure sample sin-
tered at 1620 °C.
Figure 3 shows SEM micrographs of the cross-
section of the sintered samples. As it can be seen, the
pure sample contains few pores. The dense microstruc-
Figure 3. Cross-section SEM micrographs of the sodium beta alumina: a) pure sample sintered at 1620 °C and b) sampleprepared with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 additive sintered at 1520 °C
58
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
ture with no pores or cracks, observed for the ceramics
prepared with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 additive, was
confirmation of higher density even at lower sintering
temperature. The existence of SnO2 could improve the
densification behaviour of sodium beta alumina ceram-
ics in virtue of lower sodium loss and formation of a liq-
uid phase during the sintering process [11,22]. In liquid-
phase sintering, the additive melts or reacts with a small
part of the major component to form an eutectic liquid.
The formation of the liquid phase by melting of the ad-
ditive is fairly common in metallic systems, whereas,
the formation of an eutectic liquid is more common in
ceramics [1]. The liquid phase sintering with the addi-
tion of nanosized SnO2 could be attributed to the for-
mation of Li2SnO2 and Li8SnO6 phases with a lower
melting point then the sintering temperature. According
to the PDF files of X’Pert High Score software (PDF#
00-31-0761 and 00-024-0659), the XRD main peaks of
these phases could be matched to the crystalline phase
of Na1.67Al10.67Li0.33O17 [30,31]. The presence of these
phases could improve the densification of sodium beta
alumina ceramics in virtue of the formation of the liquid
phase during the sintering process.
Advanced ceramics must meet very specific property
requirements and therefore their microstructure must
be well controlled [26]. Disadvantages of the solid
state process include sodium loss and exaggerated grain
growth during the high-temperature sintering [16]. SEM
images of the sintered and thermally etched samples
are shown in Fig. 4. These images demonstrate that the
addition of nanosized SnO2 causes changes in the mi-
crostructure. The pure sample shows typical duplex mi-
crostructure consisting of large grains in a fine-grained
matrix. However, for the sample prepared with 1 mol%
of nanosized SnO2 additive more uniform microstruc-
ture has been created. As it can be recognized, the small
amount of nanosized SnO2 additive could promote sin-
tering of sodium beta alumina ceramics and effectively
restrict the grain growth at the same time. The forma-
tion of liquid phases and the inhibition of grain growth
together improve densification of sodium beta alumina
[32].
The strength is strongly affected by microstructure
(e.g. porosity and grain size). The extensive grain
growth can lead to a significant reduction in mechan-
ical properties. The strength of sodium beta alumina
Figure 4. SEM micrographs of thermally etched pure sample sintered at 1620 °C (a, b) and sample prepared with 1 mol% ofnanosized SnO2 additive sintered at 1520 °C (c, d)
59
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
Figure 5. Two-parameter Weibull plot of the fracturestrength
ceramics with a duplex structure varies from 120 to
170 MPa, depending on the size and amount of large
grains in the matrix [16]. In the present work biaxial
flexure test was applied to 15 samples for each com-
position. The average fracture strength of the sample
prepared with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 additive ex-
ceeded 198 ± 16 MPa, while the fracture strength of
the pure sample was only 125 ± 21 MPa. The results
of other researchers confirm that a small increase in
the density of sintered samples significantly increases
its strength [14,25]. Since Weibull modulus is a mea-
sure of the spread in fracture strength, it is very im-
portant as a gauge of mechanical reliability. Generally,
when Weibull modulus is large, the variation in strength
is small and the reliability of the material is excellent
[33]. Weibull modulus may be affected by microstruc-
ture (porosity and interparticle necking), powder pro-
cessing techniques, grain size and shape, and surface
finish [33,34]. Weibull plots of the measured strength
data, shown in Fig. 5, were used to calculate Weibull
modulus. As it can be seen, Weibull modulus of the sam-
ple prepared with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 additive is
clearly higher than that of the pure sample. In this study,
it was shown that Weibull modulus is in agreement with
microstructural observations (Fig. 4). In other words,
highly uniform microstructure, smaller grain size and
higher density can cause higher fracture strength and
higher Weibull modulus all as the consequence of the
addition of nanosized SnO2 [35].
Several factors influence the conductivity of sodium
beta alumina ceramics including composition, the rel-
ative proportion of β and β′′ phases present and mi-
crostructure (grain size, porosity, impurities, etc.) [16].
The Arrhenius plots of the measured ionic conductivity
in the temperature range of 200 to 500 °C are shown in
Fig. 6. According to these results, the ionic conductiv-
ity of the electrolyte was improved in the presence of
nanosized SnO2 sintering aid. Ionic conductivity of the
pure sample at 300 °C was 0.031Ω-1·cm-1 while for the
Figure 6. The Arrhenius plots of the conductivity versustemperature for the pure sample and the sample
prepared with 1 mol% SnO2
sample prepared with 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2 ad-
ditive it increased to 0.052Ω-1·cm-1. The activation en-
ergies calculated for the measured conductivity of the
pure sample and sample prepared with 1 mol% of nano-
sized SnO2 additive were 0.31 and 0.35 eV, respectively.
The smaller grain size and higher grain-boundary vol-
ume in the sample with 1 mol% of SnO2 can be consid-
ered as a reason for its higher activation energy [36,37].
Since the Arrhenius plots of the conductivity data tend
to converge at low temperatures (Fig. 6), it can be sug-
gested that the effect of nanosized SnO2 additive is man-
ifested in the bulk resistance. The conversion to β′′-
Al2O3 phase can have the most pronounced effect in
increasing the ionic conductivity (even up to factors of
4 to 5) [16,17]. Therefore, with the addition of nano-
sized SnO2 sintering aid, the lower sodium loss, higher
amount of β′′-Al2O3 phase and higher density may lead
to the decrease in bulk resistance and thus increase ionic
conductivity.
IV. Conclusions
In this study, the effect of nanosized SnO2 additive
as sintering aid on the properties and microstructure of
sodium beta alumina ceramics, synthesized by the solid
state process, has been investigated. The results indi-
cated that the addition of 1 mol% of nanosized SnO2
decreases sintering temperature of sodium beta alumina
ceramics for about 100 °C, increases the percentage of
β′′-Al2O3 phase from 95% to 99% and improves uni-
formity of microstructure. As a result, both the fracture
strength and the ionic conductivity of the sample are
also improved effectively.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express
their gratitude to Shiraz University for supporting this
research.
60
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
References
1. M.N. Rahaman, Ceramic Processing and Sintering, New
York, Marcel Dekker, 1995.
2. Q. Meng, Z. Zhao, Y. Sun, X. Li, H. Ji, “Low temperature
pressureless sintering of dense silicon nitride using BaO-
Al2O3-SiO2 glass as sintering aid”, Ceram. Int., 43 (2017)
10123–10129.
3. N. Lamrani, A. Chaouchi, J. Bernard, B. Itaalit, D.
Houivet, J.M. Haussonne, M. Aliouat, “Influence of
Li2CO3 and V2O5 combined additions on the sintering and
dielectric properties of Ca0.5Sr0.5TiO3 ceramics prepared
from powders synthesized by sol-gel method”, Proc. Appl.
Ceram., 8 (2014) 101–108.
4. X. Lu, G. Li, J.Y. Kim, K.D. Meinhardt, V.L. Sprenkle,
“Enhanced sintering of β′′-Al2O3/YSZ with the sintering
aids of TiO2 and MnO2”, J. Power Sources, 295 (2015)
167–174.
5. X. Xu, Y. Yang, X. Wang, X. Su, J. Liu, “Low-temperature
preparation of Al2O3-ZrO2 nanoceramics via pressure-
less sintering assisted by amorphous powders”, J. Alloy.
Compd., 783 (2019) 806–812.
6. H. Ahmadi Moghadam, M.H. Paydar, “Investigation of
Sm2O3 additive on mechanical and electrical properties of
Li2O-stabilized β′′-alumina electrolyte”, Int. J. Appl. Ce-
ram. Technol., 14 (2017) 1183–1189.
7. B. Mirhadi, B. Mehdikhani, “Effect of calcium fluoride
on sintering behaviour of SiO2-CaO-Na2O-MgO glass-
ceramic system”, Proc. Appl. Ceram., 6 (2012) 159–164.
8. M.R. Saeri, A. Barzegar, H. Ahmadi Moghadam, “Inves-
tigation of nano particle additives on lithium doped KNN
lead free piezoelectric ceramics”, Ceram. Int., 37 (2011)
3083–3087.
9. H.R. Zargar, C. Oprea, G. Oprea, T. Troczynski, “The ef-
fect of nano-Cr2O3 on solid-solution assisted sintering of
MgO refractories”, Ceram. Int., 8 (2012) 6235–6241.
10. S. Huang, Q. Li, Z. Wang, X. Cheng, H. Wen, “Effect of
sintering aids on the microstructure and oxidation behavior
of hot-pressed zirconium silicate ceramic”, Ceram. Int., 43
(2017) 875–879.
11. H. Ahmadi Moghadam, A. Barzegar, “Low-temperature
sintering of K0.5Na0.5NbO3 lead free ceramics using nano
CuO sintering aid”, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron., 28
(2017)13161–13167.
12. E. Li, H. Kakemoto, S. Wada, T. Tsurumi, “Influence of
CuO on the structure and piezoelectric properties of the
alkaline niobate-based lead-free ceramics”, J. Am. Ceram.
Soc., 90 (2007) 1787–1791.
13. F. Rubio-Marcos, J.J. Romero, M.G. Navarro-Rojero, J.F.
Fernandez, “Effect of ZnO on the structure, microstruc-
ture and electrical properties of KNN-modified piezoce-
ramics”, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 29 (2009) 3045–3052.
14. J.L. Sudworth, A.R. Tiley, The Sodium Sulphur Battery,
London, Chapman and Hall, 1985.
15. H. Li, H. Fan, J. Zhang, Y. Wen, G. Chen, Y. Zhu, J. Lu,
X. Jiang, B. Hu, L. Ning, “Sintering behavior and proper-
ties of lithium stabilized sodium β′′-alumina ceramics with
YSZ addition”, Ceram. Int., 45 (2019) 6744–6752.
16. X. Lu, G. Xia, J.P. Lemmon, Z. Yang, “Advanced materials
for sodium-beta alumina batteries: Status, challenges and
perspectives”, J. Power Sources, 195 (2010) 2431–2442.
17. R.M. Dell, P.T. Moseley, “Beta-alumina electrolyte for use
in sodium/sulphur batteries: Part I. Fundamental proper-
ties”, J. Power Sources, 6 (1981) 143–160.
18. N.L. Canfield, J.Y. Kim, J.F. Bonnett, R.L. Pearson III,
V.L. Sprenkle, K. Jung, “Effects of fabrication conditions
on mechanical properties and microstructure of duplex β′′-
Al2O3 solid electrolyte”, Mater. Sci. Eng. B, 197 (2015)
43–50.
19. R. Subasri, T. Mathews, O.M. Sreedharan, V.S. Raghu-
nathan, “Microwave processing of sodium beta alumina”,
Solid State Ionics, 158 (2003) 199–204.
20. Y. Sheng, P.S. Nicholson, “Microstructural development of
a ZrO2 Naβ′′-Al2O3 composite”, J. Mater. Sci., 23 (1988)
982–986.
21. D. Xu, H. Jiang, M. Li, O. Hai, Y. Zhang, “Synthesis and
characterization of Y2O3 doped Na-β′′-Al2O3 solid elec-
trolyte by double zeta process”, Ceram. Int., 41 (2015)
5355–5361.
22. S.J. Visco, M. Liu, F. Lin, P. Kimes, L.C. De Jonghe,
“Properties and morphology of doped polycrystalline Na-
β′′-alumina electrolytes”, Solid State Ionics, 62 (1993)
185–191.
23. H. Ahmadi Moghadam, M.H. Paydar, “The effect of nano
CuO as sintering aid on phase formation, microstructure
and properties of Li2O-stabilized beta′′-alumina ceram-
ics”, J. Ceram. Sci. Technol., 7 (2016) 441–446.
24. X. Wei, Y. Cao, L. Lu, H. Yang, X. Shen, “Synthe-
sis and characterization of titanium doped sodium beta′′-
alumina”, J. Alloys Compd., 509 (2011) 6222–6226.
25. A. Pekarsky, P.S. Nicholson, “The relative stability of
spray-frozen/freeze-dried β′′-Al2O3 powders”, Mater. Res.
Bull., 15 (1980) 1517–1524.
26. W.A. Curtin, “Theory of mechanical properties of
ceramic-matrix composites”, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 74
(1991) 2837–2845.
27. K.M. Lee, S.T. Lee, D.H. Lee, S.M. Lee, S.K. Lim, “Phase
formation of Na+-beta-aluminas synthesized by double
zeta process”, J. Ind. Eng. Chem., 19 (2013) 829–834.
28. W.L. Roth, I. Chung, H.S. Story, “Characterization of
additive-modified beta alumina ceramics by nuclear mag-
netic resonance”, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 60 (1977) 311–315.
29. J.P. Bioloy, J. Thery, “Influence de l’addition d’ions
etrangers sur la stabilite relative et la conductivite elec-
trique des phases de type alumine β et β′′”, Mater. Res.
Bull., 11 (1976) 407–413.
30. Z. Fu, P. Liu, J. Ma, B. Guo, X. Chen, H. Zhang, “Mi-
crowave dielectric properties of low-fired Li2SnO3 ceram-
ics co-doped with MgO-LiF”, Mater. Res. Bull., 77 (2016)
78–83.31. J.L. Hodeau, M. Marezio, A. Santoro, R.S. Roth, “Neu-
tron profile refinement of the structures of Li2SnO3 and
Li2ZrO3”, J. Solid State Chem., 45 (1982) 170–179.32. S. Su, R. Zuo, X. Wang, L. Li, “Sintering, microstructure
and piezoelectric properties of CuO and SnO2 co-modified
sodium potassium niobate ceramics”, Mater. Res. Bull., 45
(2010) 124–128.33. X. Fan, E.D. Case, I. Gheorghita, M.J. Baumann, “Weibull
modulus and fracture strength of highly porous hydroxya-
patite”, J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater., 20 (2013) 283–
295.34. O. Tokariev, L. Schnetter, T. Beck, J. Malzbender, “Grain
size effect on the mechanical properties of transparent
spinel ceramics”, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 33 (2013) 749–757.35. H. Ahmadi Moghadam, M.H. Paydar, “Mechanical prop-
erties and reliability of Li2O-stabilized β′′-alumina ceram-
ics: Effect of synthesizing method”, Int. J. Appl. Ceram.
Technol., 13 (2016) 1053–1058.
61
H. Ahmadi Moghadam & M.H. Paydar / Processing and Application of Ceramics 14 [1] (2020) 56–62
36. G.J. May, A. Hooper, “The effect of microstructure and
phase composition on the ionic conductivity of magne-
sium doped sodium beta alumina”, J. Mater. Sci., 13
(1978)1480–1489.
37. C.L. Dirksen, K. Skadell, M. Schulz, M. Stelter, “Ef-
fects of TiO2 doping on Li+-stabilized Na-β′′-alumina for
energy storage applications”, Sep. Purif. Technol., 213
(2019) 88–92.
62